Devout Hindu's Sue Restaurant for Serving Meat Unknowingly

[SoonerMatt]

It's a simple question: Did they tell the people at the restaurant that they cannot eat meat? If yes then the restaurant is in the wrong and should compensate the customers (although I think a trip to India is too much). If no then it's the customers' own faults for not letting the restaurant know. This article seems to imply it was the latter and as such I'm siding with the restaurant for the time being. One of my best friends is deathly allergic to nuts and he once ordered a banana split but forgot to tell the waiter to skip the nuts. After he was released from the hospital he said he wasn't going to sue because it was his own damn fault. Why can't these customers say the same?

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by SoonerMatt

It's a simple question: Did they tell the people at the restaurant that they cannot eat meat? If yes then the restaurant is in the wrong and should compensate the customers (although I think a trip to India is too much). If no then it's the customers' own faults for not letting the restaurant know. This article seems to imply it was the latter and as such I'm siding with the restaurant for the time being. One of my best friends is deathly allergic to nuts and he once ordered a banana split but forgot to tell the waiter to skip the nuts. After he was released from the hospital he said he wasn't going to sue because it was his own damn fault. Why can't these customers say the same?

That's my thought as well. The article is very vague (unless I missed it) about whether or not the customers actually told the restaurant that they couldn't have any meat in their meal, and even if they had told the restaurant this still reads as if it were a simple mistake on the restaurant's part.

[Gopherbassist]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The restaraunt should have given them the right food, but having worked in restaruants, I can say with certanty that this was an honest mistake and one that was easy to make. I don't think they should be allowed to sue of something not done with ill intent.

[Mushroo]

Originally Posted by Gopherbassist

I'm not sure I agree with this. The restaraunt should have given them the right food, but having worked in restaruants, I can say with certanty that this was an honest mistake and one that was easy to make. I don't think they should be allowed to sue of something not done with ill intent.

The legal term for "I did something wrong, but it was an honest mistake and I had no ill intent" is "negligence" and people are sued for negligence every day.

There is legal precedent. In Feb. 2009, McDonalds settled out-of-court for $10 million because they mislabeled their french fries as vegetarian: McDonald's Settles Beef Over Fries - CBS News

$10 million is a lot more than "the customers should have been comped their meal."

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Mushroo

The legal term for "I did something wrong, but it was an honest mistake and I had no ill intent" is "negligence" and people are sued for negligence every day.

There is legal precedent. In Feb. 2009, McDonalds settled out-of-court for $10 million because they mislabeled their french fries as vegetarian: McDonald's Settles Beef Over Fries - CBS News

$10 million is a lot more than "the customers should have been comped their meal."

That's a perfect example why people are very disgruntled with the way our current legal system runs. It's completely bananas

[Mushroo]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

That's a perfect example why people are very disgruntled with the way our current legal system runs. It's completely bananas

Damages must be somewhat outrageous if they are to serve as a deterrent. As an extreme what-if example, if the only punishment for stealing $100 is you have to give back the $100, you'd see a lot more thieves.

Back to the McDonalds example, a fine of $100 or even $1,000 is meaningless to a multi-billion dollar corporation. $10 million seems reasonable to me, that's still less than a penny for every order of fries they sold under fraudulent circumstances.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Mushroo

Damages must be somewhat outrageous if they are to serve as a deterrent. As an extreme what-if example, if the only punishment for stealing $100 is you have to give back the $100, you'd see a lot more thieves.

Back to the McDonalds example, a fine of $100 or even $1,000 is meaningless to a multi-billion dollar corporation. $10 million seems reasonable to me, that's still less than a penny for every order of fries they sold under fraudulent circumstances.

The difference between McD's and this restaurant is that McD's claimed their fried were vegetarian, while knowing full well that they are not. Their is beef fat in the shortening. The restaurant in the OP seems to have given the table the wrong order by mistake, something that happens every day in restaurants.

[macaroni tony]

There, not their

[Mushroo]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

The difference between McD's and this restaurant is that McD's claimed their fried were vegetarian, while knowing full well that they are not. Their is beef fat in the shortening. The restaurant in the OP seems to have given the table the wrong order by mistake, something that happens every day in restaurants.

That is true, the Indian restaurant case was "negligence" whereas it appears the McD's case was actually "fraud."

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Mushroo

That is true, the Indian restaurant case was "negligence" whereas it appears the McD's case was actually "fraud."

True, though I'd be pressed to even push for a charge of negligence, as mixing up an order is a common occurence. And samosas all look the same from the outside!

[Mushroo]

Actually, re-reading the article, this is not that different from the McDonald's case:

The group placed an order for vegetarian samosas. The restaurant assured them it didn’t make the pastries with meat. Indeed, there was no meat-filled samosa on the restaurant’s appetizer menu, and the court’s decision said the tray of pastries given to the group was labeled vegetarian.

US law is generally on the side of the consumer when it comes to food ingredients being correctly identified and labeled.

[Mushroo]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

True, though I'd be pressed to even push for a charge of negligence, as mixing up an order is a common occurence. And samosas all look the same from the outside!

Mixing up an order may be a common occurrence, but that doesn't mean you can't be sued for it!

A restaurant in Atlanta was successfully sued for $750,000 after serving a customer the wrong dinner (he died!): Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer :: Case Results :: Columbus, Georgia Accident Attorney

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Mushroo

Mixing up an order may be a common occurrence, but that doesn't mean you can't be sued for it!

Aside from extreme examples, like the one you just posted (legit, IMO), I think filing suit over receiving the wrong order is frivolous at best, and the person filing such a suit should be heavily fined.

[fjadams]

Originally Posted by fourstringdrums

Edison restaurant can be sued after unknowingly serving meat to devout Hindu customers, appellate court rules | NJ.com

I'm a vegetarian, and if I go to a restaurant and order a vegetarian meal, then as I was eating it found bacon or something in it I would (and have) raised hell about it. If a restaurant tells you your food has or does not have an ingredient in it that ingredient should or should not be there, ever. Then again, I always tell the hostess I'm a vege, and request they find out if a particular food is vegetarian or not. If I get back a yes, I order it, if I get back a no or an I don't know I don't order that.

But, at least for me, all I've ever asked for is an apology and a replacement meal.

Just my 1p30, on this.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Aside from extreme examples, like the one you just posted (legit, IMO), I think filing suit over receiving the wrong order is frivolous at best, and the person filing such a suit should be heavily fined.

Agreed.

I'm sure I'm being Mr. Insensitive Butt Fungus again, but if no one died or had an allergic reaction I just can't see what case they really have against the restaurant (religious reasoning or not). Besides, you have to put some blame on the customers. I was taught to 'inspect your food before you eat it for anything questionable' (like how kids are taught to check their Halloween candy for pins, needles, etc...). I would think they would of noticed the beef before swallowing anything, but maybe that's just me.

[Mushroo]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Aside from extreme examples, like the one you just posted (legit, IMO), I think filing suit over receiving the wrong order is frivolous at best, and the person filing such a suit should be heavily fined.

Let's agree to disagree. My understanding of US legal precedent is that, in general, consumers are entitled to file suit over mislabeled products; and specifically, Hindus are entitled to file suit over food that contains beef but is wrongly labeled as "vegetarian."

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I would think they would of noticed the beef before swallowing anything, but maybe that's just me.

I certainly noticed the one time I accidentally tried to eat a spring roll with chicken in it, before swallowing. That was about a year after going vegetarian, and I learned that day to always check what Im eating to be sure its meat free.

Originally Posted by Mushroo

Let's agree to disagree. My understanding of US legal precedent is that, in general, consumers are entitled to file suit over mislabeled products; and specifically, Hindus are entitled to file suit over food that contains beef but is wrongly labeled as "vegetarian."

We'll have to disagree then. People, especially in restaurants, love to make a big deal about things.

I wonder why the mislabeled vegetarian samosa issue has never occured beforehand, surely some vegetarian before would have caught the mistake and, as fjadams puts it, would have raised hell? I think there is more to this story then just what is being reported. Beins such devout religious practitioners they should have inspected their food before eating it. I wouldnt be surprised if this was all a set up for a lawsuit and a free trip to India.

[boing]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Being such devout religious practitioners they should have inspected their food before eating it.

Likewise for those who would die eating what most other people call 'food' (peanuts, etc...)

Restaurants serve food, not plates of Certified Religious Purity. If the contamination of my eternal soul (or my physiological health) depended on what I ate, I wouldn't eat at restaurants at all.

It sounds like these people didn't take their own religious convictions seriously enough.

(edited for high-roadedness)

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by boing

It sounds like these people didn't take their own religious convictions seriously enough.

Thats how I see it. If something matters that much to you then you see to it that you never put yourself into a position make that mistake.

[jp58]

Originally Posted by SoonerMatt

It's a simple question: Did they tell the people at the restaurant that they cannot eat meat? If yes then the restaurant is in the wrong and should compensate the customers (although I think a trip to India is too much). If no then it's the customers' own faults for not letting the restaurant know. This article seems to imply it was the latter and as such I'm siding with the restaurant for the time being. One of my best friends is deathly allergic to nuts and he once ordered a banana split but forgot to tell the waiter to skip the nuts. After he was released from the hospital he said he wasn't going to sue because it was his own damn fault. Why can't these customers say the same?

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

That's my thought as well. The article is very vague (unless I missed it) about whether or not the customers actually told the restaurant that they couldn't have any meat in their meal, and even if they had told the restaurant this still reads as if it were a simple mistake on the restaurant's part.

I'm with you guys, unless I've missed it as well.